CynicalSquid
Swag Master General
3d cause i suck at 2d games
Let's take the one factor that always has bothered me; 3D Zelda lacks magic meters most of the time. The 2D game have always had an assortment of items - or spells - that require magic to use. This has added another element to the game that increased the difficulty; some dungeons required these magic-taxing items frequently. The lack of these types of things in 3D Zeldas were ridiculous; Skyward Sword could have utilized it for sure.
The next thing is the overall difficulty. I feel that a number of factors affected this. One of the most notable reasons is the lack of significant hints in the 2D games; the few guides that Link encountered in the 2D Zeldas offered little advice. The 3D Zeldas however, have guides that badger you constantly with helpful hints - many of which that people find to be exceptionally annoying. I don't think anyone has complained about hints in 2D Zeldas, and there's a good reason for that.
Enemies also added to the overall difficulty of 2D Zeldas. The AIs were far more simple back then, and yet, the enemies were a lot harder to defeat than 3D ones. Granted, 3D ones end up being more laborious to defeat, but taking time to kill an enemy is not always due to difficulty. The sheer quantity of enemies in 2D Zeldas contribute to this difficulty as well. There are so many lurking in the overworld - and dungeons - that each and every last heart that you obtain may end up saving you from seeing that "Game Over" screen.
Bosses were also far more difficult to defeat. 3D Zelda bosses boast size and girth, but 2D Zelda bosses boast intelligence and cunning. I doubt that everyone here can say that the size of the boss in comparison to the room itself made it far more difficult to avoid attacks. In 3D Zeldas, you're forced to run in a circle around the perimeter while waiting for an open spot to attack. 2D Zeldas do not offer such luxuries. I have died many more times in 2D Zelda boss fights than 3D ones.
A lot of effort? You mean the same amount that they did with 2D, but with more resources and power to put the games in 3D? I don't think, had they tried hard enough, they could have made the original Legend of Zelda in 3D.
Pretty much this in response to GD's claims against 3D Magic, but I do agree with Keef that 3D Zeldas are seriously lacking in magic use.What? The only 2D Zeldas to use magic are Zelda II and ALttP. LoZ, LA, the OoX, FS, FSA, MC, PH, and ST do not have Magic Meters in any shape, form, or fashion. LA may have Magic Powder and the Magic Rod, but they don't require any use of magical powers. They're just basic items. Same with the Fire Rod in FSA (idk if it's in FS). The fact that three of the 3D titles -- which is 3 out of 5, making it have magic more often than not, contrary to what you claimed -- use magic also makes this even more confusing. With this logic, you should be saying you prefer the 3D titles over the 2D. There's a significant lack of magic in the 2D titles as compared to the 3D.
This is something that I truly miss from the 2D era. I mean, Majora's Mask has a bunch of little things that keep me from breezing through its dungeons, and I often forget the layout of most Master Quest dungeons (seriously, I clip through like...all of MQ dungeons whenever I can haha), but those are only two of the six [six if you count MQ as a separate 3D installment] 3D games. 3D games just haven't stumped me, like at all, whereas 2D games will keep me stuck and confused at the very least 40% of the time. This needs to happen in 3D games, but I don't know if Nintendo can do it.Small things have stumped me in 2D dungeons for days on end, before I finally take a small guess, and end up being correct.
JuicieJ said:With this logic, you should be saying you prefer the 3D titles over the 2D. There's a significant lack of magic in the 2D titles, especially when compared to the 3D ones.
MC, PH, and ST are all pretty easy and each have a partner of some sort that offer advice. These are 2D titles, and they're the latest ones, to boot. That makes them more prevalent to this discussion, meaning that you should be referring to the classic 2D titles in this case, not 2D Zelda in general.
I don't know about the OoX or FS, but the only 2D Zelda games I've ever had legitimate trouble with enemy-wise are the first three. LA, FSA, MC, PH, and ST all had pretty simple enemies that didn't take much to defeat at all, even in mass quantities. Once again, I think you should be referring only to the classic 2D titles (save LA) in this case.
All except for PH and ST. Actually, even MC had a bit of the 3D boss design to it.
What makes you say that? I don't see any reason to believe they couldn't have done this.
*Ahem* Transformation masks as well as elemental arrows with substantiated effects. MM may not have the quantity of magic use as the 2D games, but the quality itself is up there with at the very least ALttP.Majora's Mask is for a few abilities with the transformations masks - aka not very much at all.
So you're bashing Nintendo for lacking the technology to create 3D prior to all of its other series'? How exactly does this work? Apparently effort now is equivalent to the means, resources, and technology to produce a video game into 3 dimensions prior to the release of consoles such as the Nintendo 64 which could make 3D games.
whereas what you said wasGanondork in the imaginary world said:Nintendo cannot make LoZ in 3D even if they tried.
. Really, I'd put the fault here on the way you structured your sentence; without a 2nd or 3rd review of your sentence, it comes off as you saying "I don't think they can make the original in 3D", even if you take context in consideration. I know that is what I figured when I first read your post.Ganondork said:I don't think, had they tried hard enough, they could have made the original Legend of Zelda in 3D.